NSX's new engine annouced today

Well since we both can't find out articles, I guess we are both right/wrong

As for the next NSX, Honda has gone back and forth for 4 years now with a replacement. First it was no, then yes, a hybrid, then no, now yes again..

SOmeone said it best in this thread, I'll wait until I can drive it at the dealership.

The reason it sounds odd, Honda is one by one canceling all its sports cars.
1. The S2000 will not be replaced.
2. THe Integra Type R will not be replaced.
3. The Civic Type R will not be replaced.
4. The Euro Accord (our Acura TSX) has a Type S in Europe, no Type R.
5. They are now saying the NSX is back, but just a few months ago, the project is dead.

Now the issue within Honda is what direction do they want to take with the car. A few want it to remain true to the original, lightweight, no techno do-dads and a higher revving V-6 in the high 300hp range.
More wanted to take it the HSC route, i.e, the first sports car hybrid, heavier, more luxurious, more electronics.

I guess the rumored V-10 route is the way to go. Funny thing is they don't even have a V-8 yet! That is rumored to be here around 2011!

 

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear... I'm not saying you were wrong. I remember the article too. What I'm saying is that the author of that article is/was using numbers in one way to make his point vs. another way which would show flaws in his logic. It's the old adage.. numbers don't lie but liars use statistics.

The $800MM claim could well be correct. But only if you don't use industry norms for accounting.

 

Nobody is going to buy a honda over a porsche because of a few reasons

Major Victories and Championships

14 Makes and Team World Championship (1964, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1994)
8 Long Distance World Championship
3 IMSA Supercar-Series (1991, 1992, 1993)
6 German Racing Championship (1977, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985)
20 European Hill Climbing Championship
3 Formula 1 Driver World Championship (1984, 1985, 1986)
2 Formula 1 Constructor World Championhip (1984, 1985)
26 Formula 1 victories (1962, 1 win; 1984, 12 wins; 1985, 6 wins; 1986, 4 wins; 1987, 3 wins)
20 Daytona 24 Hour (1968, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1995, 2003)
15 IMSA Supercar-Race (USA)
16 Le Mans 24 Hour (1970, 1971, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998)
17 Sebring 12 Hour (1960, 1968, 1971, 1973, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988)
11 Targa Florio (1956, 1959, 1960, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973)
4 Rallye Monte Carlo (1968, 1969, 1970, 1978)
2 Paris-Dakar Rallye (1984, 1986)

Why would you buy a honda when it barely has a racing history?.I would buy a Porsche because i think they know what they're doing. Porsche has won over 16,000 races in a little more than 50 years. Thats more races than nascar has ever ran period.

 

Porsche did make a huge investment into the Carrera GT but on the other hand they knew that it would sell well because of what it is. Honda's problem is that their not known for their performance cars unlike porsche. Porsche could build a $100,000 minivan and it would still sell well...lol because it would probably have 500 hp and go 190 mph.

Porsche couldn't sell the Carrera GT for $150,000 because they each cost about $300,000 to build. Really i don't think porsche built the Carrera gt as much to make money as they did just to show off,which porsche is really good at. The GT costs so much to build because it's mostly carbon fiber and exotic materials.

Honda's problem with the nsx is that its a very basic car to build with exotic bodywork, and a honda accord motor stuffed in all for $100,000...thats why they don't sell well. Its kind of like puting a neon srt-4 motor in a viper and selling it for $100,000...do you think it would sell very well?

 

Porsche may have won races but they're still not a Honda.

Ok, Honda doesn't go racing. If thats your only criteria when shopping for a car when you walk onto the car lot, than this car is definitely not for you. I suppose you daily drive and race nothing but Porsche's (I didn't look at your profile)?

Don't be bitter that Honda out does Porsche for daily driveability, reliability, and perform admirably at the track. It only took Porsche a few years to catch up to the challenge set by the NSX-R. All that car was is a weight reduction, no A/C, and suspension tweak. Porsche had to overcome it with what? Oh yes, all of the same including more power.

I would be sad too if an early NSX with suspension, Comptech, and gears for $30-40k all inclusive rapes every Porsche but a Turbo, GT3, GT2, or CGT.

I guess nobody bought those 1,900 NSX's the first year.

The classic difference between two guys ordering steak. You (the Porsche guy) use the latest and greatest steak knife and the guy next to you (NSX guy) is still using a 14 year old butter knife.

If only Porsche could design their cars that well.... Enjoy your meal!

Sunny

 

I think you guys are thinking to big when it comes to the nsx with a v-10. You really think that the Nsx would be anywhere close to $100,000 with a exotic 500 hp motor?.

The honda 3.0L v8 engine in an indycar makes 650 hp on methanol which is around 130-140 octane.Do you think on sonoco 94 your going to make anywhere near 500 hp?. Also you have to look at the motor in a indycar is about $125,000 and is made up of extremely light high tech parts. To get 500 hp out of a v10 on the street, the motor will have to be pretty stout and cost a lot to produce over an accord motor. I'm thinking at the most the engine will produce around 375 to 400 hp. With 100 hp more than it has now the car will only run mid 4's to 60 and mid 12's in the quarter mile. You also have to keep in mind that with the extra 4 cylinders the motor itself will probably weight 100-200 pounds more which will hinder the cars performance. And don't forget about how strong the transmission is going to have to be to take almost 400 hp. So to me its very optimistic that the nsx will have 500 hp because of the price to produce the drivetrain will make the car almost the cost of a 911 turbo...would you spend $120,000 on a honda??..i wouldn't.

 

There are two different ways to achieve the same thing. Honda's way (a philosophy also shared by Lotus) and Porsche's way (a philosophy also shared by other German manufacturers).

The stock NSX tranny runs fine after engine modifications but benefits from a new twin clutch. Why redesign a new transmission when there are others readily available that can handle that kind of power? Regardless, I don't think building a transmission to handle the power delivery should they do is going to be an obstacle.

Rocketsports Racing achieves 650bhp out of a reinforced high compression Jaguar 4.2L engine stoked out to 4.5L and its also naturally aspirated. Do they run methanol in that series? No.

Honda designed a 100hp/liter naturally aspirated engine 15 years ago thats rock solid today and responds well to mild forced induction. Its just your run of the mill Accord motor, after all.

What makes you so certain that they couldn't do the same today with a slightly larger displacement engine in a different configuration?

Either way, you seem like the type of person that can't give credit where credit is due. Instead, you come into an NSX revival thread swinging the Porsche racing victory stick.

Sunny
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

You didn't get what i meant by it. I don't pick a car by its racing background, but when your talking about performance its good to know where your car has come from and if its succesful. I don't drive my porsche's everyday because thats not really what their made for. A porsche is made for weekend drives in the country, and if you get tired of that you can throw on some racing tires and go beat up on race prepped cars at the track.

Have you ever driven a porsche?. A honda is an appliance more than it is a car. A porsche is very comfortable to drive in everyday use and is very easy to drive. My first porsche had 196,000 miles on it with only routine maintnance..thats pretty reliable. When you buy a performance car your not worried about comfort,and reliability..all your worried about is speed and performance. If you think that a NSX will out perform a 997 on the racetrack then you just haven't driven a porsche...a true sports car. I think porsche did just fine against the NSX-R.

2002 NSX-R
$89,000
0-60 mph: 4.9 sec
0-100 mph: 11.7 sec
Quarter Mile: 13.4 sec @ 106 mph
Skidpad: .91g
Top Speed: 175 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 117 ft
Slalom Speed: 65.8 mph

2000 GT3
$104,000
0-60 mph: 4.6 sec
0-100 mph: 10.6 sec
Quarter Mile: 12.8 sec @ 112 mph
Skidpad: .97g
Top Speed: 186 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 120 ft
Slalom Speed: 66.9 mph

The fact is that i can go buy a 1989 porsche 944 turbo "S" for $10,000 and run with a 2002 $100,000 honda.Sure you can go spend $40k and build a rice burner but do you know how fast a 944 turbo can be with $40k in mods?...its a nice meal lol.. a 89' stock 944 turbo out running an overpriced 2002 NSX.

Sure you could have a tuned out NSX but you still can't compare it to a stock porsche because of what it is..a true sports car with an amazing history and pedigree.

I really doubt that porsche is worried about honda and their two sports cars, and i don't think they can classify them as competition unlike Ferrari and Lamborghini.

 

No,no,no i think the NSX is a great car but it's hard to compare it to a porsche. True the transmission will run fine,but for how long?. The problem is having the transmission last for 200,000 miles in a production car with 500 hp is different than a car that isn't driven a whole lot. My point their really was that it would add weight to the car if they had to do a lot of mods to the drivetrain to make it stronger. Sure they could build a high compression motor making 500hp but how much do you think that will cost?. In my opinion,i would make it a v6 twin turbo because you can make the same power but without the added weight and cost of a v10.

We'll just have to wait and see.

I'm not trying to bash honda,i'm just saying that i would rather buy a sports car from a manufacturer that has built 70 different models and is a veteran in the performance segment and in racing,then a car company that has two models, and has only been building sports cars for a short period of time with almost no racing history(except open wheel and motorcycles).

 

Funny, that was how you started your first post to this thread.

Daily driving is what NSX's are made for. However, your quote above seems at odds with these below.

Same as the NSX.

How very appliance-like of them.

It seems you're pretty resigned that you have a comfortable, potential daily driver that makes a great weekend car.

Either you don't seem particularly worried about speed and performance since Porsche's are made for weekend drives in the country. Or, you're having trouble coming to terms with Honda's sports car that is giving you the same type of driving experience. Or both.

We can compare used cars and tune them up all day long and bench race them. Who cares?

You're missing the point. The NSX is a unique car that left an amazing mark in the sports car world. Porsche is what it is and the NSX is what Honda isn't supposed to be. Do you get it now?

Than why are you posting in this thread?

Two. 996tt tip and a 996 carrera. They were a bit of a let down. I.E. fast but uninspiring to look at and drive after being so hyped up. I won't draw any parallels to what they drove similiar to because the other cars lack amazing history and pedigree.

Are we through yet? I hope for your sake, I can go on all night.

Sunny

 

Lets leave it at that then, you prefer Porsche, others prefer Noble, Ultima, TVR, or Chevy.

There are so many ways Honda can take it but rest assured whatever they finally do decide to do, they will do it well enough to set a benchmark. They aren't going to build a car that will be only 3rd best. They are after the coveted pound for pound best car title.

Sunny

 

Being On That Razor's Edge is Waltzing With the Devil, By: Paul Dean, former times staff writer and automotive reviewer

When Chuck Yeager became the first man to fly faster than the speed of sound, when Roger Bannister became the first human to run the four-minute mile, they were guaranteed immortality. To the Olympic downhill skier, to the Indy race driver, to the Boston marathon runner, to the tour de France cyclist, to the Whitbread sailor, to the Reno air racer, go to race and the glory - our awe and respect. The adoration of young boys, the affection of ladies and the applause of millions.

What gives with speed, anyway? Why do so many of us seek the adrenaline rush that comes with pushing beyond known limits of sensible norms?

Perhaps it is knowing that the far edge of life is the near edge of death and that being on that razor's edge is waltzing with the devil, shivering from stimulation of pure survival. As a fledgling war correspondent, Winston Churchill once noted, there is nothing quite as exhilarating as the crack of the shot that misses.

Speed and daring are also forms of thumbing our noses. By adventuring, by risking, we still whatever secret jelly quivers inside us.

It may also be that we are just soul-weary of a hundred levels of government dictating our health, welfare, and safety. Which may well explain why an estimated 45 million Americans regularly face the absurd challenges of skydiving, drag racing, bungee jumping, white-water rafting, anything that doesn't involve popcorn and a Sony remote.

Accepting that pathology, it is no wonder that even the Evian-mannered lose reason and restraint once they get behind the wheel of a car.

We're not talking of our amateur criminal who pound the pedal to the carpet, recklessly and frustrated, compounded by a chemically amplified sense of invincibility. That human weakness came with the first DUI, which came shortly after 1903 and the introduction of the Model A.

No, the peculiarity here is the gentle owner of a Honda accord, the God-fearing grandfather and the law abiding soccer mom, the novitiate and the political science major, the respected artisan and sober professional, who see 120mph not as a number on the speedometer but as a target. Because it is there.

I have been entranced with speed since age 8, when I built a sand racer on the beach, stuck a bucket on my head and gear-shifted my sand shovel while yelping, "grrrerrrrerah... vroomf!"

It too me several years to actually find a way to speed, but since then, I have driven a car at 201.6mph, flown a place at Mach 2.2, piloted an offshore racing boat at 105.5mph, and swam 100 meters in 56.9 seconds. Note those percise numbers and decimal points. The addiction reveals itself in the details.

Mostly, the thrill of speed on open waters or in empty skies or on skis down a lonely Alp may be easily dismissed as no more than the search for a kick in the pants. Yet, there's also the satisfaction of managing self and machine and melding instincts with learned skills. Especially when it comes to the automobile.

I remember the explanation of a living race legend, Sir Stirling Moss, who decreed that any silly bloke can drive fast in a straight line. No talent in that. The absolute of racing, he said, was seeing a driver take a corner at nine-tenths that you proceed to take at ten-tenths. Then, he concluded, you are a Rembrandt, who, having created a masterpiece, set down his brush and informed his peer: "There, beat that."

For the throughly experienced, driving a car at speed is a perfect amalgam of physics, adrenaline, pride and confidence.

It is a matter of reading a car, knowing its limits of balance and adhesion, sensing its weight shifting for and aft to the forces of braking, turning and accelerating, knowing even when a car is feeling irritable.

And when it wants to play, there is a lightness of being, an equilibrium that you and it have created. There's the drug.

But here's the rub. This cannot be done just anywhere.

The downside is obvious. Each year, as most people know by now, about the same number of Americans die in highway accidents as were killed by a decade of fighting in Vietnam.

With two vehicles approaching head-on at a closing speed of 150mph, no seat belt or air bag will prevent bones from becoming jam. Passengers get decapitated. Drivers get cut in half. Remember James Dean. Think of Princess Diana.

Sad but true. Ninety-eight percent of today's drivers are incapable of handling a car at high speed, and there's nothing more dangerous than ignorant daring.

Sure, there are ways to learn speed with skill, but few of us take the time to go beyond our high school driver's ed classes. Today's motorists don't know the capability of their own automobiles and have even less understanding of their own abilities. And God really does not protect fools and drunks.

Still, its hard to shake the desire for speed. It is a social scourge, an aphrodisiac, a fatal poison. It is a siren singing to an impatient society forever obsessed with time and distance.

 

Its so funny how you try and alter what i say and use it against me. I started my post to point out that i would rather buy a car that has a good background than a car that doesn't. Yes a NSX is a car that you drive daily. I said you can throw on some racing tires and go racing on the weekends as well as just driving in the country. You can put some racing tires on a kia,but that doesn't mean thats what the car was created for. I guess you could put racing tires on a NSX but you might have a hard time catching a porsche gt3 with race tires..its because thats what the gt3 was built for.Porsche tests all their cars on the toughest ,most demanding race course in the world unlike honda. The NSX was built for executive's that wanted a quick,comfortable car and not a car for hardcore racing. If honda meant for the NSX to go racing ,they would have found a place to race it.

Yes a honda is an appliance. Its a car that you drive from point a to point b in, their reliable, cheap,get good gas mileage,comfortable,and you can always count on it.... Its your typical white picket fence, soccer moms dream car. So a honda is just an appliance and not a true drivers car like a porsche. Yes porsche is a car that is comfortable enough to drive everyday, but i choose not to drive mine as a daily driver. Just because you can drive a car everyday and its comfortable doesn't make it an appliance...a car is an appliance when its just tranpertation and their is no emotional connection to the vehicle.

Yes my porsche is comfortable and can be driven everyday, but thats not what performance cars are really made for...i guess you haven't owned a sports car yet. Now your twisting my words again. My porsche's sit in the garage until the weekend, where i can go out in the country and tear it up on tight twisty roads where you don't have to worry about poeple like you do in the city. Then i said, if you get tired of that, you can always put racing tires on it...i was refering to the weekend as well. Sure you can do the same thing in a NSX but you won't have the same experiance that you will in a 500 hp 911 turbo that outperforms most cars on the road.

The only mark the NSX made in the sports car world, was to build a car that no one would buy, because its overpriced and under powered. The NSX is just like every other honda, but it gets to 60 two seconds faster than a civic and has cool body work.

So you've driven a base 996 and a 996 turbo with the automatic, which makes it a second and a half slower to 60 than with the manual. Of course you didn't have a good time in a 996 turbo that is slower than a NSX. Go find someone with a manual turbo ,and go thrash it on the race track..the only place to find out what a car is really all about. Lol go drive a Carrera gt and see if its uninspiring. I've driven a lot of cars and to me only porsche,ferrari and lamborghini give you what you want in a true sports car.

A cars history and pedigree is very important. Driving a performance car with no history or pedigree is like being a plastic surgean's first patient..wouldn't you rather go to a dr with 50 years of experience?

I guess my big question is, if the NSX is so good of a car,than why do they only sell a few hundred a year?..you would think they would sell thousands,but i guess the NSX is just popular with the tuner crowd.


I guess we can't agree because we're comparing apples to oranges but just because we can't see eye to eye doesn't mean we don't share the same passion for cars.

 

Honda will shelve this car long before it gets anywhere near production. The company, as evidenced by its current aging line of boring ho hum cars competes with Toyota. Until Toyota builds a land rocket(hint: they wont) Honda will continue to mint money with it's accords and be happy.

Honda has been milking its past successes for a LONG time now and quality is starting to slip. Not that they are getting worse but the competition is getting better.

 

Amen. Its not like honda can do anything without toyota doing it first. I wonder whats going to happen when honda,toyota,and chevy pulls out of the irl in the next few years. The only place they'll go to is ford/cosworth which has a contract with the champ car..do you think champ car will help the irl when the irl screwed over champ car?....the irl might be dead as of 2007.

Anyway back on topic-honda will follow toyota out of the irl and into nascar..its all just follow the leader with those two.

 

I think the V10 is a great marketing move. Things have changed in the reputation of Japanese cars as performance cars since the early 1990s. With Lexas, Honda and Infinity making very fast and luxurious cars which are often faster and always more reliable than the european competition, people will jump at the chance to buy an exotic with a V10 that doesn't need its first major service until 105,000 miles!

 

Sorry, after reading this paragraph from you I have to discount everything else you've said as ignorant bull****.

The 968 that you have in your handle is an evolution of the 944 which was the evolution of the 924 which was a glorified VW. Given your logic (or lack thereof), where does that leave you.

And to be clear, I have no problems with P cars. I think they're pretty damned cool and the 996s, 993s and 944s that I've driven each left me wanting more. I only make this distinction so that I'm clear about not being harbored in your camp of brand snobbery.

 

I may be off in the years but in EVO (European car mag) the Honda NSX-R is the only car to break the seemingly endless wins for Porsche every year. I think it won in 2001 or so. THe GT-3 won in 2003.

 

Yes, I turned your words against you but it was late and I was having fun.

I'd love nothing more than Honda to take themselves up on a second chance offer at turning the NSX into a respectable sports car line and establish pedigree.

Certainly Porsche has it in droves, as much as any exotic or evocative brand. For as civilized as the NSX is with its performance potential (not the best, but just measuring the potential), its very similiar to modern Porsche's.

I don't think you hate the NSX but give it a grudging respect and thats all I was seeking to find out. Accord motor? Please.

And as for Toyota, there was a Supra Turbo all over the ass of the 360 I was riding in last night on a So Cal drive through the canyons and on the highway. There was no question in any of the minds of the other four drivers (3 355's, 1 360) that the Supra could devour those cars in all but the most daring or risky canyon driving. And the Ferrari's were pushing hard.

We see eye to eye a lot more than you would believe. We all have our opinions, our favorite marques, and the NSX is worthy of respect. Its not the be all end all, but a fabulous pet project of Hondas.

Sunny

 

PORSCHE968TS you are calling the NSX nothing more than an appliace with a honda accord engine??? WTF! Have you ever even driven a NSX in your life? Obviously not. And seriously, have can you show your face around here if you own a freaking 968.. a total POS. Wasn't that car one of the worst selling porsches of all time? Could you not afford a 996 or something?

I have no problem saying the 997 is a better can than the NSX. It is far more advanced and Porsche does a great job updating their cars to the times. Honda let us all down with the 2002 revision with no bump in power. Give a NSX a 350HP V6 and it will run all day long with a GT3.

I have huge respect for Porsche 911's. They are sweet cars. But 968's are a total joke. And since you own one, I guess the jokes on you!

 

Those are the stats for a NSX-T, NOT a NSX-R!!!!!!!!!!...hell not even a coupe to Type S

 

Are ya sure its faster?
http://www.kris.1000lecie.pl/filmy/TN_Acura%20NSX%20vs.%20Ferrari%20355.JPG

.... I love the 355 more than the NSX, (the marque has a big factor in that), I have to say that the NSX should have a bit more power than the V6 290hp its been given.... so lets say a V10 is fitted in... which means we are looking at around what? 390 hp? jeez, slap on some turbo's to that V6 and i think it'd be improvement enough.

 

Do you really think honda would put a V10 out with less than 450HP? Come on guys. Think about it.

As far as 355 being faster than a NSX, in a straight line I would say 9 times out of 10 it will be faster.

On a track, I'd say it is too close to call. The NSX-R will smoke a 355.

 

True the 968 came from the 924 but is very different. Yes the 924's engine is mostly made up of volkswagon parts but the 944 is all porsche. The 924 was designed by porsche and used a VW motor because porsche didn't have the their motor ready for the car...vw owed porsche a few favors. If you really look at it,vw wouldn't exist if it wasn't for porsche so i don't think a 924 is a glorified vw because it was a porsche design. The 944 was the first of the series to be a hundred percent all porsche and not vw/porsche. The 968 has set a lot of benchmarks for porsche and has no ties to vw.

 

I have driven a NSX, and it is a really good car but i wouldn't trade my 911 for it.

A 968 a POS...are you kidding me. The 968 i own is made up of porsche parts to mimic the 968 turbo "S" but mine has 435 hp and the stock porsche has 305....lets see the specs-

1994 968 turbo s......................faster than a 1994 911 turbo
0-60 mph: 4.5 sec ...................faster than a 1994 911 turbo
0-100 mph: 12.3 sec ............same as a 911 turbo
Quarter Mile: 13.0 sec @ 107 mph .....same as a 911 turbo
Skidpad: .91g .................same as a 911 turbo
Top Speed: 175 mph ..................faster than a 1994 911 turbo
Braking, 60-0 mph: 132 ft
Slalom Speed: 62.9 mph

2002 acura nsx
0-60 mph: 4.9 sec
0-100 mph: 11.7 sec
Quarter Mile: 13.4 sec @ 106 mph
Skidpad: .91g
Top Speed: 175 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 117 ft
Slalom Speed: 65.8 mph

Where is it that the 968 is a pos??..it could outrun a 911 turbo with a 3 litre 4 cylinder turbo...the 968 in 1994 was named the best handling car in the world by major magazines. Maybe you should do some research before saying a car is a piece of sh**. Go in a porsche forum and say that and see what kind of answers you get back. The 968 wasn't the worst selling selling car porsche ever made.Porsche built 12,000 968's in 4 years.

I own a 996 gt2, so i think i can afford a 996. People always think that porsche just builds the 911 and nothing else, and they overlook all of the other great models to come from porsche. Also back when the 968 came out in 1991 it was only about $20,000 less than a new 997 is today, so i don't think it was a cheap car.

I guess my 435 hp 968 turbo is a joke when it can run better lap times and run faster in a straight line than my gt2 at $100,000 less in price. Think about it.. my 968 has a perfect 50/50 weight distrubution,has only 15 hp less than my gt2,and is 700 lbs lighter.

So really the jokes is on a guy that buys a NSX for a $100,000 and can be out run by a car my mom drives,a chrysler 300c srt-8. I guess the jokes on you pal!
300c srt-8
0-60 mph: 4.9 sec
0-100 mph: 11.7 sec
Quarter Mile: 13.2 sec @ 108 mph
Skidpad: .88g
Top Speed: --- mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 113 ft
Slalom Speed: 67.3 mph

By the way a stock 968($50,000) without the turbo is just a half second slower slower than a NSX($100,000)....not bad for a car that was built 14 years ago.

Here's what a piece of sh** 968 turbo looks like
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login